The Massachusetts DEP 40 decibel noise guideline, the wind turbine manufacturer’s recommended setback distance, the specific town emergency and fire contingency plan criteria and the 23 mph turbine shut off restriction all have been, with some exceptions, met or exceeded.

Yet, complaints by neighbors continue, and will indeed be exacerbated as seasonal winds change and Wind II comes on-line. Very telling of current regulation effectiveness maybe?

Is it a conspiracy hatched by those anti-wind neighbors to thwart good intentions of the Energy Committee’s “need for green” or municipal “need for green” energy cost savings? Possibly. That is, if the neighbors hadn’t been supportive of the town’s wind project concept in the first place.

Is it that these scoundrels are feeding off internet exaggerations of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ and are just plain lying about symptoms and lost sleep? Maybe. That is, if you believe these neighbors, which were mostly strangers to each other before the turbines, just happened to simultaneously suffer from a range of similar physiological effects.

Combine their fabrications with their brazen willingness to – no matter their socio-economic or educational class – spend money on: attorney fees, fees associate with suing Falmouth, sound proof windows, hotel rooms to allegedly get a few nights sleep, wind turbine noise seminars to become more informed, fees for acoustic consultant testing and a third party perspective, and numerous doctor appointments, prescriptions and medical aids offering temporary relief from their deceitful turbine caused maladies.

The real fact people – the town boards have been offered numerous reports from credible sources, institutions, acousticians and medical clinicians from around the country, and in deed the world, all demonstrating the plausibility that industrial wind turbines negatively effect human wellness if poorly sited. Most importantly, town boards have ready access, as well as the offerings of personal experiences and symptoms as examinable evidence from neighbors.

Would these neighbors be willing to be examined to prove their claims? Has anyone asked these human guinea pigs? Why wouldn’t Town Hall ally with medical experts and conduct a study of actual health outcomes (Epidemiology), using medical science to directly find actual health risks from real-world (Falmouth) turbine exposures?

Instead of practicality and common sense, when effects of turbine noise on health and well being are being debated, Town Hall is persuaded by conclusions from a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute biologist (health board member charged with a literary review), an acoustics firm (paid by the town), the Mass DEP and the town Energy Committee (minions of Governor Patrick). These advisors (amongst others), with the help of certain local newspaper editors, would have you believe ‘they’ should hold more sway than the studies and reports by actual medical doctors and medical professionals. In other words, ask your auto mechanic to diagnose whether that lump on your neck is cancer or not. Absurd?

Medical field evaluations, specifically directed to accessing physiological impact from wind turbines, could certainly answer more questions than Town Hall’s over reliance on regulatory compliance, ill equipped citizen volunteers or state agencies marching to the Governor’s “green” agenda.

The Falmouth wind turbine issue is a matter of conscience, not compliance! I hope town meeting members, given Town Hall’s apparent reluctance, force a full epidemiological study. The town upheaval demands it, and without it, the community fracture is guaranteed to widen. And for God’s sake, neighbor to neighbor, rather than continued Town Hall buffoonery and ineffective regulatory compliance, please vote to suspend turbine operations until medical questions are answered,

Unless, of course, you believe Town Hall, and think your neighbors are liars.

Mark J. Cool
Fire Tower Road

Source: Mark J. Cool,
Falmouth

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information. For more information, click here. Send takedown inquiry or request to excerpt to query/wind-watch.org. Send general inquiries and comments to query/wind-watch.org.